Bangalore District Court
And The I.O vs Persons Leela And Soumya Apprehended On ... on 28 February, 2022
KABC010004542018
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh,
B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B.(Spl.)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.30/2018
BETWEEN
State by Banasawadi P.S.,
Bangalore. .. COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Leela
D/o. Poovaiah
A/a 39 Yrs.,
R/o. 13th Cross,
2nd Main, Murugeshpalya,
Bengluru.
2. Soumya @ Geetha
W/o. Appanna
A/a. 34 years,
R/o. 13th Cross,
2nd Main, Murugeshpalya,
Bengluru.
3. Vinod
2 SC No.30/2018
S/o. Jayaraj
A/a. 36 years,
R/at. Doddabanaswadi,
Banaswadi Post,
Bengaluru.
4. Venkatesh
S/o. Anand,
A/a. 24 years,
R/at. Vijaypura,
Devanahalli,
Bengaluru Rural District.
5. Rudresh
S/o. Muniyappa
A/a. 24 years,
R/at. Vishwanathpura,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
6. Sunil
S/o. Shrinivas
A/a. 26 years,
R/at. Vijaypura,
Devanahalli,
Bengaluru Rural District.
7. Somashekhar
S/o. Munegouda
A/a. 28 years,
R/at. No.75,
Vishwanathpura,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
..ACCUSED
(By Sri K.M.Jagadeesh Murthy, Advocate)
Date of offence & time 7.4.2017 at 14.40 hours
Date of report of offence 7.4.2017 at 17.55 hours,
Date of arrest of the accused 7.4.2017
Date of release on bail A4 to A7 on 15.04.2017, A3 on
3 SC No.30/2018
18.04.2017 and A1 and A2
on 19.04.2017
Total period of custody ...days
Name of the complainant Sri Munikrishna D.H.
Date of commencement of 24.1.2020
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 16.2.2022
Offences complained of U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act
and Sec.370 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector, Banasawadi Police Station, Bangalore, has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that :-
The accused No.1 and 2 along with accused No.3 were running the prostitution business at House No.1 situated near Government School, 4th Cross, Chikkabanasawadi within the limits of Banaswadi P.S., Bangalore by trafficking CW.2 and CW.3 with the false assurance of getting job at Bangalore, and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and were leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business. On 07.04.2017 at 14.40 hours the complainant along with panchas CW.4, 5 and his staff CW.7 to CW.11 conducted raid, and apprehended accused No.1 to 3 along with customers accused No.4 to 7, who were involved in the prostitution business, and rescued CW.2 and CW.3 and at that time seized cash of Rs.2,500/- and condoms etc., from the spot. Thereby the accused persons are alleged with the offences 4 SC No.30/2018 punishable U/s.370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of IPC, before the jurisdictional XI Addl.,CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused No.1 to 7. The same is numbered as SC No.30/2018 in this Court.
4.The charge was framed against the accused No.1 to 7 on on 14.10.2019 for the offenses punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC. The accused No.1 to 7 have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.The prosecution has examined in all six witnesses as PW.1 to 6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.8, and identified Mos1 to 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up the witnesses CW.8 to CW.11, in view of the evidence of other police official witnesses, as repetition witnesses. In spite of sufficient opportunities provided to the prosecution by issuing summons, warrant and proclamation for securing CW.2 and CW.3, but the concerned police failed to secure the said witnesses and in view of the same on 11.01.2022 the evidence of said witnesses was taken as nil by rejecting the prayer of the prosecution. Further the prosecution has not taken any steps to secure the witnesses CW.2 and CW.3, in view of the same dropping of evidence of CW.2 and CW.3 remained intact.
5 SC No.30/20186.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the case was posted for recording statement of accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2022, and the same was duly recorded. The accused No.1 to 7 did not claim for defense evidence nor produced any documents to support his case in spite of sufficient opportunities. The accused has complied provisions U/s.437A of Cr.P.C.,
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 to 3 were running prostitution business at house bearing No.1 I Floor situated near Government School, 4th Cross, Chikkabanasawadi, within the limits of Banaswadi P.S., Bangalore, by trafficking CW.2 and CW.3 with the false assurance of getting job at Bangalore, and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and were leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offences punishable U/s. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 to 7 with an intention to run prostitution business by trafficking CW.2 and 6 SC No.30/2018 CW.3 forcibly induced them to indulge in prostitution business for wrongful gain, and thereby the accused No.1 to 7 have committed an offence punishable U/s.370 of IPC?
3. What Order?
9.This Court has answered the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Points No.1 and 2: Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
11.It is the specific allegation against the The accused No.1 and 2 along with accused No.3 were running the prostitution business at House No.1 situated near Government School, 4th Cross, Chikkabanasawadi within the limits of Banaswadi P.S., Bangalore by trafficking CW.2 and CW.3 with the false assurance of getting job at Bangalore, and indulged them in prostitution business in the public vicinity and were leading their life from the amount of illegal gain from the said business. On 07.04.2017 at 14.40 hours the complainant along with panchas CW.4, 5 and his staff CW.7 to CW.11 conducted raid, and apprehended accused No.1 to 3 along with customers accused No.4 to 7, who were involved in the prostitution business, and rescued CW.2 and CW.3 and at that time seized 7 SC No.30/2018 cash of Rs.2,500/- and condoms etc., from the spot. Thereby the accused persons are alleged with the offences punishable U/s.370 of IPC and Sec.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
12.In order to prove the said allegation the prosecution has examined PW.2 Munikrishna who deposed that after obtaining credible information regarding prostitution carried out near Government School I Floor, at Banaswadi, he obtained search warrant from the officials secured the panch witnesses and issued request notice to the panchas to participate in the raid and after obtaining their consent directed his staff Cw.7 to Cw.11 to be part of the raid and proceeded near the spot and deputed one of his staff CW.7 as decoy by handing over amount of Rs.500/- with the signatures of himself and the panchas to negotiate and to trap the accused. Further it is evidence of PW.2 that after receipt of information from the decoy regarding carrying out of prostitution raided the house along staff and panchas, and apprehended accused No.1 to 7 involved in committing the alleged of offence of prostitution indulging CW.2 and 3 on the false assurance of providing job and living on the said illegal gain. It is also the evidence of PW.2 that he has seized material objects MOs1 to 3 from the spot and also seized the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA_03_AD_5767 near the spot used for prostitution business. PW.6 decoy has also deposed in evidence as narrated by PW.2, police official/complainant regarding apprehending of accused involved in committing the alleged of prostitution by indulging CW.2 and CW.3 and seizure of MOS1 8 SC No.30/2018 to 3 along with auto rickshaw from the spot. In the cross- examination both PW.2 and PW.6 have admitted that the place, which has been raided is the residential house belonging to PW.3 Janaka Kumar, from whom the accused No.1 has taken the house on rent. At this juncture it is very pertinent to note that the said Janak Kumar who is examined as PW.3 has deposed in his chief examination that he has not entered into any rent agreement with the accused No.1. It is very important to note that PW.3 has identified accused No.2 Sowmya as the person to who he has rented his house. This evidence clearly establishes that the owner of the house PW.3 has failed to identify the accused before the Court to whom according to him he has rented his house. The non-identification of the exact person to whom his house was rented by PW.3 the owner of the house creates suspicion regarding the possession of accused No.1 and 2 in the raided house belongs to PW.3 as a tenant. In view of the same the testimony of PW.3 the owner of the house that he has rented it to accused No.1 Leela cannot be believed. Further in the evidence of both the witnesses PW.2 and PW.6 they have admitted that the raided spot is a residential house with adjoining houses and no local persons specially women have been secured as pancha to the panchanama Ex.P1. It is equally important to note the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.4 the panchas who have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by deposing that they were not given any notice by the police regarding accompanying for conducting raid nor they were present at the time of raid and the police officials have seized material objects Mos1 to 3 and auto rickshaw shown in 9 SC No.30/2018 Ex.P3 and P4. Both the witnesses were treated as hostile and cross-examined at length and no material evidence was elicited in their evidence to prove that they were part of the raid and police officials have seized material objects through panchanama in their presence, and they have given the statements as per Ex.P2 and Ex.P6 before PW.5.
13. As already discussed above, the police official witnesses PW.2 and PW.5 though given evidence about the raid, but in the cross-examination the said witnesses have admitted that they have not called any women from the locality to be the pancha nor there is an evidence from the witness that in spite of their request no women panchas from the locality have co-operated and the action taken by them against the said panchas as per the provisions of law for their non-cooperation. The pancha PW.1 and PW.4 are the male persons, who have not supported the case of prosecution. At this juncture I would like to reproduce the provisions of Se.15(2) of ITP Act, which reads as follows:-
Sec.15(2) before making a search under sub- section(1), the special police officer(or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be) shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants(at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the lace to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do:
It is crystal clear from the provisions of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act, 1956 that it mandates that two or more respectable 10 SC No.30/2018 inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated has to be called them for panchanama, out of them at least one of them shall be a women residing in the said locality. In the instant case the panch witnesses, who were examined are male persons, have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. From this fact it is crystal clear that the complainant/PW.2 and the I.O., PW.5 have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.15(2) of ITP Act. It is also equally important to note that the police officials PW.2, and the investigation Officer PW.5, who has filed the charge sheet, have admitted that in spite of dense locality and adjoining residential houses, near the place of raid they have not secured any local neighbour of the adjoining raided spot, as witness for mahazar nor recorded the statements regarding the occurrence of the alleged offence against the accused. It is equally important to note that though the incidental spot is a residential locality and building surrounded by the adjoining residential houses, non citing of the local persons as a witness by the Investigating Officer also creates a doubt in the prosecution case regarding the conduct of raid and and apprehending of the accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 7 along with the victim CW.2 and CW.3 who were forced to indulging committing prostitution and seizure of MOs1 to 3 and auto rickshaw in Ex.P3 and P4 is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
14.The prosecution has examined PW.6, who according to the prosecution was appointed as a decoy and was handed over currency note of Rs.500/- to negotiate and inform if tall the prostitution was carried out in the house. It is the further 11 SC No.30/2018 evidence of PW.6 is that he visited the said house, and after having negotiation with the inmates of the house handed over Rs.500/- note to the ladies by name Leela and Sowmya, who permitted him for prostitution with Cw.2 Nandini. It is also the evidence of PW.6 that the complainant PW.2 raided the house and arrested the accused persons along with the victims CW.2 Nandini and CW.3 Deepa who were forced to indulge in prostitution business with him and another by name Somashekara, and also seized material objects Mos1 to Mo3 and auto rickshaw from the spot through panchanama Ex.P1. It is pertinent to note that the in cross-examination PW.6 decoy deposed that PW.2 raided the spot, but quiet contrary to his chief-examination that he has not given any signal regarding the prostitution business carried out in the said house. It is also admitted by decoy that no averments exists in the panchanama Ex.P1 regarding the complainant PW.2 conducting physical verification before allowing the decoy to visit the house. This evidence of PW.2 clearly establishes that the complainant PW.2 has never conducted any physical verification of the decoy before permitting him to participate in the raid. In the cross- examination the complainant/PW.2 deposed that he has not entered the missed call, which was giving by decoy through his mobile as a information regarding carrying out prostitution in the house to be raided and also admitted he has not mentioned in the panchanama regarding physical verification of himself, decoy and the panchas as to whether it was conducted before raid. From this evidence of decoy PW.6 and the complainant PW.2 it establishes that the complainant/PW.2 before permitting 12 SC No.30/2018 PW.6 to be decoy has never conducted physical verification. Further it is very pertinent to note that the decoy in his cross- examination it is quiet contrary to his own chief-examination by stating that the amount of Rs.500/- which has been handed over to him to trap the accused persons was handed over to the Victim/Deepa who are with him. But in the chief-examination the evidence of PW.6 decoy it is deposed that he has handed over the amount of Rs.500/- to Leela and Soumya who permitted him for prostitution with one girl by name Nandini. The evidence of PW.6 decoy is quiet contrary to the facts of the case, since according to PW.2 when he raided the spot and enquired about decoy he said decoy was in the room by name Nandini. In the cross-examination the said decoy deposed that he was in the room along with CW.3 Deepa and was handed over Rs.500/- to the Deepa. It is equally important to note that according to PW.2 he has seized six currency noties Rs.500/- from Leela and after removing one note of Rs.500/- which he had handed over to the decoy seized the remaining currency notes of Rs.500/- each face value and executed seizure panchanama. At this juncture it is very important point that has to be taken into consideration that according to PW.2 he has singed one Rs.500/- note and handed over to the decoy to have negotiation and to trap the accused, then what prevented the complainant/PW.2 to seize the Rs.500/- note which bears his signature handed over to the decoy so as to prove that the decoy has used the said currency note in trapping the accused persons while they were indulging in prostitution. Non- production of the said curry note bearing the signature of PW.2 13 SC No.30/2018 handed over to decoy to trap the accused indulging in the prostitution is also fatal to the case of the prosecution so as to prove that the decoy was permitted to carry out the prostitution by accepting the currency note of Rs.500/- bearing the signature of complainant/PW.2.
15.In view of contradiction in the evidence of complainant/PW.2 and the decoy PW.6, the evidenc eof witnesses cannot be taken into consideration to prove the guilt of the accused person by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Further it is also pertinent to note that the victims CW.2 Nandini and CW.3 Deepa were not secure before the court in spite of summons warrants, and proclamation to prove that the accused persons carried out the prostitution business indulging them on the false pretext of providing job and living on the wrongful gain. It is the evidence of PW.2 that the said victims have deposed before him at the time of raid the accused persons Leela and Soumya apprehended on the spot had involved them in prostitution business by providing condoms with the help of Vinod. Non-examination of the victims CW.2 and CW.3 is a blow to the case of the prosecution since the entire case is depended upon the illegal activities of prostitution carried out by the accused perosns indulging the victims CW.2 and CW.3.
16.In order to prove the allegations against the accused persons the prosecution has examined the PW.5/CW.12 the Police Official Sharath Kumar, who deposed that at the time of occurrence of the said incident he was working as a PSI at Banaswadi P.S., and CW.1/PW.2 has produced the victims, 14 SC No.30/2018 seized properties and accused persons, and submitted a complaint Ex.P5, which is registered in crime No.228/2017, and entered the property particulars in PF No.66/2017. Further it is the evidence of PW.5 I.O., that he has recorded the statements of the victims, accused and also the panchas PW.4 and PW.5 and owner of the house CW.6/PW.3, statement of the raiding staffs CW.7 to CW.11. Further it is the evidence of PW.5 I.O., that after completing the investigation he has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons to the Court. In the cross-examination of PW.5 it is specifically suggested by the counsel for accused contending that a false case has been lodged for statistics purpose against the accused on the pressure of higher officer without complying the mandatory provisions of law, which is denied by the witness PW.5. It is vehemently argued by the accused counsel and brought to the notice of the Court the evidence of I.O.,/PW.5 who deposed that at the time of the incident he was working as Police Sub- inspector of Banasawadi P.S., and after registering the complaint and after completion of investigation and has filed the charge sheet was not authorized not a Special Police Officer, as specified by the State Government or on behalf of the Government in investigating the cases pertaining to the ITP Act.
17.At this juncture I would like to refer the provision of Sec.13(2) of the ITP Act, 1956, wherein it is mandatory that the investigation has to be done by Special Officer and an Advisory body i.e., the Special Police Officer, who shall not be, below the rank of Police Inspector, having authority to investigate the case and file charge sheet. In the instant case the I.O., PW.5 15 SC No.30/2018 has not produced any document to show that he is appointed as a Special Officer and having the rank of Police Inspector in the Department having authority to investigate cases pertaining to ITP Act,, 1956. The evidence of PW.5 clearly discloses that he being in the rank of Police Sub-Inspector, who had registered the case and recored the statements of the witnesses during investigation and filed charge sheet. It is the specific defense of the accused No.1 to 7 that the witness PW.5 who had investigated the case has no authority to investigate the case since he was working under the rank of PSI, below the rank of Police Inspector as per the provisions of ITP Act. At this context it is worth to note a decision of Hon'ble High Court regarding the said mandate of the Act reported in Shankaregowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru and others reported in ILR 2016 Kar 3067 , wherein it is held that:-
"Police Sub-Inspector cannot be a Special Officer, as per the mandate of Section 13 of the Act, it can only be the Inspector of Police or an Officer of above the rank of Police Inspector who can be appointed as Special Officer. When a procedure is prescribed under law to do a thing in a particular manner, it should be carried out in that manner only. In the instant case PW.5 PSI who registered the case and investigated by recording the statements of the witnesses, submitted charge sheet is not shown to be qualifying as 16 SC No.30/2018 "Subordinate Police Officer" notified by the State Government to assist the Special Officer.
Hence, the investigation is found to be defective without any compliance to Sec.13(2) of ITP Act, 1956.
18.It is equally important to note that the same point came up for consideration in Criminal Petition No.5497/2016 between G. S. Mallinath Vs. State of Karnataka and another , wherein this Court in the said petition also has categorically held that the Police Officer who is below the rank of the Police Inspector has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file charge sheet under the above said provisions.
19.Relying upon the above said provision of Section 13(2) of the said Act and the dictum of law laid down in the above said ruling it is crystal clear that the investigation done by the Police-Sub-Inspector PW.5 is vitiated by serious procedural irregularity and not curable in nature.
20.Further on careful reading of the above provisions Sec.3, 4 and 5 and ITP Act, 1956, it is found that none of the section are attracted to accused No.4 to 7, since they are apprehended on the spot by the Police Officials PW.2, as a customers indulging in prostitution with victims/CW.2 and CW.3. The statement of the victims/CW.2 and CW.3 recorded by the I.O., PW.5 discloses that accused No.1 to 3 have procured CW. and CW.3, and indulge them in committing the alleged offence of prostitution with the customers accused No.4 to 7.
21.Such being the case, on carefully referring the dictum of law laid down in the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court 17 SC No.30/2018 of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.2187/2018, dated 31.05.2018, Criminal Petition No.7056/2014, dated 18.12.2015, Criminal Petition No.7110/2011, dated 17.12.2015, Criminal Petition No.5808/2016, dated 18.11.2016, Criminal Petition No.9682/2016 dated 13.1.2017 WP No.56504/2015 dated 17.12.2015, Criminal Petition No.8055/2015, dated 31.03.2017 and Criminal Petition No.200782/2016, dated 12.07.2016 it clearly establishes that the allegations against accused No.4 to 7 would not come under the ambit of the alleged provisions Sec.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act, 1956. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.388/2020 dated 18.03.2020 between Amarnath Vs., State of Karnataka has held that the proceedings against the customers cannot be invoked under provisions of U/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370(A) of IPC and as per the guidelines rendered in decision Goenka Sajan Kumar vs., State of Andhra Pradesh in 2015(3) Crimes 281 (AP) .
22.So in view of the above discussions, by applying the above dictum of law as referred above, it is very clear that the accused No.4 to 7 are being the customers as per the available materials on record and none of the offences as mentioned in the charge sheet certainly attract against accused No.4 to 7.
23.Therefore, from the above reasons and discussions it is very crystal clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish or prove the guilt against the accused No.1 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Points No. 1 and 2 in the negative.
18 SC No.30/201824.Point No.3: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 7 are hereby acquitted of the offenses punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 7
stand canceled.
MOs1 and 2 shall be destroyed, and MO3 shall be confiscate to the State after appeal period is over. Further interim custody order dated 3.5.2017of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA03-AD-5767 subjected in PF No.66/2017 dated 7.4.2017 Item No.5 is made absolute after appeal period is over. (Typed to my dictation by the Judgment Writer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2022) (Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
19 SC No.30/2018ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Fayazpasha P.W.2: Munikantha P.W.3: Janak Kumar P.W.4: Fraun D'Souza P.W.5: Sharath Kumar D.P. P.W.6: Balaji.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Mahazar through PW.3. Ex.P.1(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.1(b): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.2: Statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Photo Ex.P.4: Photo Ex.P.5: Complaint. Ex.P.5(a): Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.6: Statement of PW.4. Ex.P.7: FIR No.228/17 dtd 7.4.2017. Ex.P.7(a): Signature of PW.5. Ex.P.8: SWRT 3/17 dtd.7.4.17.
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:-
NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:- MO1: Condom Box MO2: Condoms MO3: Cash of Rs.500 + Rs.2500/-.
(Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.20 SC No.30/2018
Accused No.1 to 7 are present Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 7 are hereby acquitted of the offenses punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 7 stand canceled.
MOs1 and 2 shall be destroyed, and MO3 shall be confiscate to the State after appeal period is over. Further interim custody order dated 3.5.2017of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA03-AD-5767 subjected in PF No.66/2017 dated 7.4.2017 Item No.5 is made absolute after appeal period is over.
(Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.